In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) Luke 2:1-2 TNIV

This verse, for reasons that will be discussed has caused many anti-Biblical skeptics and anti-Christian websites to call the historicity of Luke’s account into question. –The use of the name “Quirinius” is what is truly problematic for Christian scholars and apologists.

According to Josephus after Archelaus had been deposed by Rome in 6 A.D. as the ruler of Judea after his father Herod the Great Quirinius who is described as being “of great dignity” was sent by Augustus, the Roman Emperor to be the new Syrian governor (or legate). He was instructed to carry out a registration which would include the Jews because Judea had become a province of Syria.

At first the Jews were outraged a the thought of such a registration however most of them apparently decided to accept it. Josephus’ account says:

The Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-persuaded by Joazar’swords, gavean account of their estates, without any dispute about it. (Antiquities 18,1,1)

And then right after, Josephus mentions the famous Jewish rebel known as “Judas the Galilean.” The Jewish historian describes him as being from Gamala. (This same Judas is mentioned in Acts 5: 37) — Judas began a revolt against Rome claiming that this census was “no better than an introduction to slavery.” He and his followers insisted that if the Jews were to participate then God would no longer assist his people. Josephus then described:

All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people.

It is obvious that Josephus didn’t see the revolt as justified. He also describes the burning of the temple in the same context seemingly implying that its destruction was one in a series of chain reactions even though it happened decades after Judas’ revolt. He says that he (or rather he says “we”) lost friends because of those wars which shows a digression to Jewish revolt of the 60’s. — Needless to say: The Jewish rebels lost both wars.

The Date of Jesus’ Birth

The major problem with Luke’s usage of Quirinius for the date of the nativity is when he bacame the legate (or governor) of Syria which was 6 A.D. — The Book of Matthew places the birth of Jesus durring the reign of Herod the Great who died in 4 B.C., ten years before.

Richard Carrier, of infidels.org, in The Date of the Nativity in Luke (5th ed., 2006) says:

It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D. It is equally indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to 6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This becomes an irreconcilable contradiction after an examination of all the relevant facts.

Also James W. Deardorff in his paper entitled “His Birth Year: 6 B.C. or A.D.6“ speculates that Matthew is wrong in putting the birth of Christ in 6 B.C. and that Luke is probably more accurate. He then says:

An A.D. 6 birth date would mean that Jesus was significantly younger than commonly supposed during his Palestinian ministry — only in his mid twenties — and that his education during his youth was a remarkably advanced one, for him to have become known as “Teacher” at such a young age. His relatively young age may havegiven psychological reason why his teachings were rejected so quickly by scribes, Pharisees and elders. It similarly gives reason why theologically committed scholars and influential church leaders alike prefer the earlier birth date, as it yields a more mature Jesus during his ministry. It appears that the writer of Luke felt the same way, in saying, in Lk 3:23, that Jesus was “about thirty” years of age when he started his ministry.

As he says Luke claims Jesus was about thirty when he began to preach. However, his claim that Luke felt Christ would be rejected if he were presented as younger is without any evidence and is no more than a baseless assumption. Also, I seriously doubt that the pharisees would have considered Jesus a threat if he were still that young, not to mention I doubt that many people would have even taken him seriously in his lifetime. — Also Luke 1:5 claims that Jesus was born in the days of King Herod, placing his birth at 4 B.C. or earlier like Matthew. Also, without changing the context of time, the census at the beginning of chapter two is said to happen “in those days.”

I seriously doubt that this mention of Herod in Luke would do anything to change Carrier’s position that Luke places Jesus’ birth in 6 A.D. In Footnote 1.1.3 of his essay he shows his belief that Luke may be refering to Archelaus, Herod’s successor in Judea. He also rightly points out that he as well could have been called “Herod” but wrongly assumes that he could also be called “king.” (His Brothers Antipas and Philip received other territory that their father had.) He therefore believes John the Baptist was born in 5 A.D. — However, Carrier’s position totally dismisses the fact that, as I said, Luke says Jesus was (at least) thirty when he began his ministry after be was baptized by John. He thinks Luke didn’t care about his accuracy which flies in the face of Luke 1: 1,4.

Luke implies that the thirty year old Jesus began to preach in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar when he was baptized (Luke 3:1). Tiberius Caesar became the Roman Emperor in 14 A.D., so the fifteenth year of his reign would have been 28 A.D. So Jesus would have had to be born in at the very least 2 B.C. at the very least for this to be true (that is, eight years before the well-known census of Quirinius). Although this rough date of 2 B.C. would be technically in the days of (Herod) Archelauswho ruled for ten years from 4 B.C. to 6 A.D. his birth year would be years away from the QuiriniunCensus. So the age of thirty is an estimate, not a rough number.

Certainly, if Luke wanted to tell his readers that Jesus was born in 6 A.D. then he would have said that he was twenty-two years old when he began. This obviously cannot be estimated as thirty. I think it is more likely that Herod the Great, and not Archelaus, is who Luke was refering to. As mentioned, Luke 1:5 calls Herod the “King” of Judea, and yet Archelaus was not recognized as a king. The Encyclopedia Britannica, about Archelaus, says:

Named in his father’s will as ruler of the largest part of the Judaean kingdom –Judaea proper, Idumaea, and Samaria—Archelaus went to Rome (4 BC) to defend his title against the claims of his brothers Philip and Antipas before the emperor Augustus. Augustus confirmed him in possession of the largest portion but did not recognize him as king, giving him instead the lesser title of ethnarch to emphasize his dependence on Rome. (Emphasis mine)

So Carrier’s preferred position that Luke is not talking about Herod the Great seems majorly flawed because Archelauswas not recognized as “king of the Jews” by the Roman emperor despite his father’s wishes. He was given a lower title. So I see this as proof that Luke puts Jesus’ birthat4 B.C. or anytime before Herod’s death.

To be honest, Matthew does seem to call Archelaus “king” in Matthew 2: 22 because the term for “reign” that is used is related to “Basileas” which is Greek for king. But this isn’t necessarily proof to the contrary. Matthew doesn’t seem to feel obligated to givethe literal titles of Roman politicians. An example of Matthew’s free style can be found in Matthew 14: 1, 9 where he calls Herod Antipas both a tetrarch and a king within verses. (Antipas was a Tetrarch, not officially a king.) Perhaps Matthew and Mark felt free to do this because he was a son of a King.

– But Luke, on the other hand, shows no such writing freedom. He tends to give the official title of Roman Politicians. Every time he mentions Antipas (Luke 3:1-19) he only ever calls him by his real title. Also when he mentions Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7,8 ) the procosul of Cyprus as well as others he does this as well. It is not impossible that Luke may havebroken with this particular writing style, but it is unlikely. So I think the odds are that Luke 1:5 is a reference to Herod the Great and not to Archelaus.

Another problem with usingLuke to date Jesus’ birth from 6 A.D. is its agreement with the other three gospels that Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor that allowed the Jewish leaders to execute Jesus. Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea from 26 to 36 A.D.. — If Jesus was born in 6 A.D., then he would have been 30 years old in 36 A.D. which was the last year Pilate was governor. Traditionally, Jesus preached for slightly over three years. So this would make the year of his death 39 A.D. when Pilate was no longer governing the Jews.

So, by dating the Nativity during the reign of Herod as well as Christ’s age at certain points withthe governorships and the year of the emperor of Rome (Tiberius) all combine to show that Luke is by no means dating the birthof Jesus to 6 B.C., but rather before Herod’s death which was in 4 B.C. — So, Luke is clear, however the census of Quirinius remains problematic.

The Census “Before”

Jesus was born before the death of Herod, but Luke 2:2 all by itself appears to put his birth ten years after. So this is a major reason why this particular Biblical passage is used by skeptics to show the Bible as fallible and self-contradicting.

One popular solution promoted by some Christian apologists is a re-translation of the term “first” or “prote” which is used in the verse. So, instead of Luke 2:2 saying that the census was the “first” one taken while Quirinius was governor it is translated as:

This was the first registration, before the one the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

With this, the problem would seem te be resolved. Layman of CADRE Comments, in his post “Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A matter of Translation“ says:

Under this translation, Luke is not placing Jesus’ birth during the governorship of Quirinius, but before it. Before the uprising that it spawned and during the reign of King Herod. But is this translation merely a contrivance to avoid the problem? No, there are good reasons for translating Luke 2:2 in this manner.

He’s mostly right in saying this. It would also do away with the apparent historical confusion of Quirinius being governor of Syria during Herod’s reign which was not the case. He gives an important piece of evidence:

The oddity of the author of Luke making such an uninformed error here is matched, perhaps exceeded, by the awkwardness of the grammar in Luke 2:2. As Craig Evans, notes, “most commentators agree that Luke’s use of the word ‘first’ is grammatically awkward.” Craig Evans, Luke, New Testament Series, page 43. This leaves the proper translation of the verse in doubt. And, in fact, many commentators haveinterpreted 2:2 as indicated above — refering to a census before the governorship of Quirinius.

Richard Carrier, a professional anti-Bible skeptic, in his extensive essay against Luke 2:2 in a certain section entitled “Did Luke Mean “Before” Quirinius” he objects to this suggestion saying:

For in fact this argument is completely disallowed by the rules of Greek grammar. First of all, the basic meaning is clear and unambiguous, so there is no reason even to look for another meaning. The passage says hautê apographê prôtê egenetohêgemoneuontos tês SyriasKyrêniou, or with interlinear translation, hautê(this) apographê(census)prôtê[the] (first) egeneto (happened to be) hêgemoneuontos[while] (governing) tês Syrias(Syria) Kyrêniou[was] (Quirinius). The correct word order, in English, is “this happened to be the first census while Quirinius was governing Syria.” This is very straightforward, and all translations render it in such a manner.

In other words, Carrier is making the argument that translating the term “prote” as “before” instead of as “first” is nor grammatically correct. But he never addresses the fact that the term in the passage is grammatically awkward. If it weren’t for that fact, then I should be more likely to accept his criticism. But by not taking it into account, his argument therefore falls short.

Layman, in defence of this translation of the verse says:

This translation is not without literary support. Dr. Brook Pearson notes that there are several examples from other ancient Greek texts of “protus” being used in the same grammatical sense as in Luke 2:2, to mean “before” or “prior.” Brook W. R. Pearson, “The Lucan censuses, revisited”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Apr. 1999. Perhaps most important, there are other New Testament examples of the Greek word “protus” being used to mean “before” or “former.” John 1:15 is translated: “John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.” Also, John 15:18 is translated in the New American Standard to state, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.” Additionally, there are parallels in other ancient Greek literature of “protus” being used in the same sense as in Luke 2:2 to mean “before” or “prior”: Aristotle Ph. 8.8 (263a, lines 11 12) (”therefore, in the earlier words concerning movement”) and Athenaeus Deipnosophistae (discussing the origin of movements in dancing).

So, the bottom line seems to be that despite the unorthodoxy of this translation, it cannot be ruled out as a possible solution of the problem with Luke 2:2. Several Christian apologists like Glenn Miller of the Christian Thinktank and James Patrick Holding of Tekton Apologetics have embraced this alternative meaning of the passage.

A decree “most prominent”

Another suggestion translation of the verse which I personally find interesting was made by Stephen C. Carlson, a Greek linguist. Carlson disagrees with the alternate translation of “prote” as “before” however also has problems with the standard traditional translation. He says that if Luke really wanted to say that if Luke meant that this were the very census during which Jesus’ birth took place then there is little use for the term “prote.”

In his post “Luke 2:2 and the Census” he suggests that Luke 2:2 should be translated as:

This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.
or
This [decree to get registered] became the/a most important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.

This translation, like the rendering of the term as “before” would also solve the problem. — Carlson suggests Ephesians 6:2, which he points out has similar structure to that of Luke 2:2, and says out that “prote” in this verse which is usually translated as “first” legitimately may be translated as “most prominent.” The verse says: “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with a promise.”(NRSV) He then cites Danker who believes the term really means that the commandment is most important rather than “first” in chronological order.” The verse then is parralleld with Mark 12 29.

In his second post “Parsing Luke 2:2” Carlson points out that his new translation on Luke 2:2 depends on how manuscripts of the New Testament put the wording:

One reason for the hand-waving is text critical–different manuscripts haveslightly different wordings for Luke 2:2, which attest to the apparent difficulty of the text and some of the variants affect the determination whether ἀπογραφὴ goes into the subject or the predicate. For example, most of the later witnesses, including the second corrector to Codex Sinaiticus (012) of the sixthcentury or so, insert the definitearticle ἡ between αὕτη and ἀπογραφὴ to read: αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο; the original hand of 01*, on the other hand, read with a different placement of the verb: αυτη απογραφη εγενετο πρωτη. Codex Bezae(D) of the fifth century has a different word order, also by moving the verb: αὕτη ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη.

Of course, Richard Carrier, in Footnote 10.6 of his essay criticises Carlson’s suggested translation. -I’ve already blogged Carrier’s criticism as well as Carlson’s response to him in “A ‘Most Prominent’ census: Carlson vs. Carier.”

Carlson believes, like those who support the translation of “prote” as before, that Luke is talking about a different census than that of Quirinius. He therefore thinks that this particular one is probably related to the other. — In his final post “Putting Luke 2:2 in context” he argues that this verse works as a digression to reference the later census.

The Census of Saturninus?

Whether Luke meant that “prote” was to be translated as “before” or as “most prominent” it seems quite apparent that he was talking about a registration that happened before the well known census of 6 A.D. But depending on the circumstances I would favor one over the other.

I think, as others do, that the answer to the problem of Luke 2:2 may be found is the early Christian writings may help with this. An interesting comment is made by Tertullian an ancient Christian from the third century A.D:

There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. (Against Marcion 4:19)

Tertullian’s statement places the census during the time that Sentius Saturninus was the Governor of Syria (from 9 – 6 B.C.) If this is so, then it would likely have been in the last year of his government because Jesus’ birth is traditionally placed in 6 B.C.

Carrier, in the section of his essay entitled “Was “Quirinius” a Mistake for Someone Else?” he dismisses this:

Around the turn of the 3rd century, it is believed that Tertullian claimed the Lukan census occurred during the tenure of Gaius Sentius Saturninus (who was governor of Syria from 9 to 6 B.C.). Of course, Tertullian is not very reliable. So the fact that he makes this claim in the context of antiheretical rhetoric is enough to cast doubt on its authority.

To back up his that Tertullian isn’t reliable on this issue, in Footnote 15.2 he says that “Tertullian claims that Emperor Tiberius asked the Senate at Rome to recognize Christianity as an official religion in Apology 1.5.” — The weakness of this criticism is obvious. All this shows is that Tertullian was fallible. And God forbid that anyone be infalible to be considered as a reliable source. Also, Carrier’s example is completely unrelated to the statement of the census and therefore doesn’t prove (or disprove) a thing.

He then goes on to argue that Tertullian is talking about “censuses” in the plural and that therefore those who believe he is talking about the census of the nativity are ignoring the context of his statement. But whether he uses the plural or the singular doesn’t proveor disprove anything to me. — It is also true that Tertullian’s context was more inline withtalking about Jesus’ family and not about his birth, but that is far from proof that this isn’t the census in question. The fact that Saturninus’ governorship is dated to lasting until 6 B.C. (the same year historians date thebirth of Jesus) shows this may in fact be a piece of the puzzle of solving the problem of Luke and the census. Carrier then goes on to say:

Therefore, Tertullian could not possibly have been thinking of the census during which Jesus was born. So he may well mean another Sentius Saturninus (an ancestor of the other), who was governor of Syria in A.D. 19-21 (Tacitus, Annals 2.76-81), a plausible time before which Jesus’ siblings would have been born.

I’m just going to say that Carrier is assuming to much in saying that Jesus’ brother’s would have been born so late and that the later Satutninus was who Tertullian was talking about. There is no reference to the birthdate of any of his siblings. So Carrier is left to argue on flimsy assumptions. He then says:

But even if Tertullian meant brothers by a previous marriage, and thus had in mind the previous Sentius Saturninus, this still would not be the census during which Jesus was born, since Jesus had to be born later to a subsequent wife of Joseph. And Tertullian in that case would simply be bluffing, since no census under the first Saturninus would have counted the inhabitants of Judaea.

I have no allusions to Joseph being married previously before Mary though it is possible. As far as I’m concerned that is a baseless tradition with no Biblical support. Carrier’s assumption is that Tertullian is bluffing comes from his argument that a census could not have happened before 6 A.D. But in the next section I plan on showing that he’s wrong.

The Census Identified?

As most criticism of Luke’s account revolves around Quirinius and a taxation census it should be noted that this may not have been for taxation at all. According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words the term Luke uses is “apographe” which means registration and not necessarily a taxation in every case. Many, as I, believe that this is indeed the case and that it happened between 3 to 2 B.C. in the case of Caesar Augustus. In Augustus’ own words:

In my thirteenth consulship [2 BC] the senate, the equestrian order and the whole people of Rome gave me the title of Father of my Country, and resolved that this should be inscribed in the porch of my house and in the Curia Julia and in the Forum Augustum below the chariot which had been set there in my honor by decree of the senate. At the time of writing I am in my seventy-sixth year.

Many Christian apologists point out that at this time the subjects of the Roman empire had to take an oath of obedience to the emperor. — Josephus, in the Antiquities of the Jews 17: 41-45 mentions such an oathmade in Judea shortly before Herod’s death at the time of Saturninus, the governor of Syria. A group of Pharisees (six-thousand in number) refused to take the oathto the Emperor and to the King while the rest of the nation did. And as a result Herod fined them. They were then later put to death.

Richard Carrier doesn’t take this suggestion seriously as he only gives a very condenced detail of it in a section of his paper entitled “Two Last Ditch Attempts.” I have to admit that the Augustus and Jesephus citations seem weak when used alone.Carrier rejects this explanation for two reasons. 1) He doesn’t believe that Herod could possibly have been alive in 2 B.C. and 2) he thinks Josephus’ language and Luke’s differ way to much for it to be the same event.

First for the assumption that Herod could not havebeen alive in 2 B.C., I have already gone into great detail as to why I believe Herod lived longer than what most historians think in my blog post entitled “Josephus and Herod the Great.”

A major reason for the placing the birth of Jesus in 6 B.C. has a lot to do with the accepted dating of King Herod’s reign over Judea from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. Again, as pointed out, skeptics of the Bible use this date and say that it is in conflict withLuke 2 with the traditional translation of verse 2 which indicates that Jesus was born while Quirinius was governing Syria in 6 A.D. (around 12 years later.)

Part of his logic as to why Herod couldn’ t havebeen alive later than even 3 B.C. was that his sons succeeded him in a certain year. But there is a little bit of evidence that Archelaus antedated his reigh. Right after his father died he went to Rome to claim his throne. Josephus’ account says:

Then stood up Salome’s son, Antipater, (who of all Archelaus’s antagonists was the shrewdest pleader,) and accused him in the following speech: That Archelaus did in words contend for the kingdom, but that in deeds he had long exercised royal authority. (Wars of the Jews 2: 26, emphasis mine)

Archelaus “had long exercised royal authority.” This was actually not true. But the only way that this could legitimately be said if he antedated his rule over Judea. Lets remember, he still didn’t technically rule at all. Not as king and never as co-regent. The late Antipater was co-regent for a while so it has been speculated that all three of Herod’s surviving sons dated their reigns from then on. And so that would cause Josephus to reduce Herod’s reign by three to four years.

An implication of Herod’s death being later than 4 B.C. would mean that the dating of Syrian governors who reigned durring Herod’s last years should therefore be re dated as well. Traditionally, the governorship of Sentius Saturninus is placed from 9 to 6 B.C. However, since this is based on traditional assumptions and the more popular dating of Herod’s reign and if my belief about Herod’s death is correct then his governorship of Syria can be placed from 5 to 2 B.C. That would place the term of Quintilius Varus, his successor, which is usually dated from 6 to 4 B.C. within 2 B.C. to 1 A.D.

It should be noted that I do believe the traditional date for his governorship can be salvaged. Although I have great reservations about his book, Ernest L. Martin the writer of The Star of Bethlehem: The Star That Astonished the World in chapter eleven which is entitled “The Two Governorships of Quintilius Varus” gives pretty convincing evidence that he was the Syrian governor twice: Once right before the term of Saturninus and right after. The best evidence he gives is the inscription found near Tivoli which mentions an unnamed man who had a legateship (or governorship) twice. (At least the latter one was in Syria, but there is no indication that the first one wasn’t.) The inscription was, in fact, found very near to Varus’ home.

And as for Carrier’s second objection that Luke and Josephus use overwhelmingly different language (i.e., that Luke used the term “census” andthatJosephusused the other term “oath” he either overlooks or doesn’t know about other evidence that actually ties these two terms together.

The Spanish historian and Christian apologist, Paulus Orosius, who wrote in the fifth century A.D. gives a key detail about this event:

[Caesar Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled. So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born. This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world. (6.22.7)

He places Jesus’ birth in the time when Augustus was named “first of all men.” This could only be between 3 to early 2 B.C. when he was named “Father of his country.” And later Orosius says, “That first and greatest census was taken, since in this one name of Caesar all the peoples of the great nations took oath, and at the same time, through the participation in the census, were made part of one society.” (7.2.16, emphasis mine) — Hence, he ties the term “census” with an “oath.” It now is clear that both of Carrier’s objections against this explanation come up short and are irrelevant.

His last objection to this is the way oaths were “typically” taken:

Indeed, typically, oaths were not registered at all: one swore before a magistrate and received a diploma attesting to the fact that you swore, which you could present if anyone challenged the fact, as is shown in detail in the martyrologies of those who refused to swear for Decius in 249 A.D.

I want to emphesise that Richard Carrier is talking about how oaths were “typically” made. The oath of 3 to 2 B.C. with Augustus named as the father of his country would not have been a typical one. It would, in fact, have been a very special occasion. So when one takes this into account, this last objection is not good enough. Right before the conslusion odhis paper, Carrier then says he’s never seen evidence of this, a statement I find incredible because most, if not all Christian apologists who embrace the idea of the oathand the census being one and the same cite (or at least mention) these passages of Orosius’ works. Perhaps he just ignored it.

–Also, lastly, it should be mentioned that Orosius’ placing Jesus’ birth at this later time is another reason to place King Herod’s death after 4 A.D. –And with my dating of the census as 2 B.C. with the terms of Saturninus, it would seem that Tertullian wasn’t bluffing after all.

The trip to Bethlehem

Even if the census has been identified as the oath of 2 B.C., that still leaves open another criticism. Luke 2: 4-5 says:

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

The criticism is that Mary would not havehad to go with Joseph even if he had to go to Bethlehem. –Despite disagreementswith Ernest L. Martin’s book, I think he gives a good idea as to why they would have had to go to Bethlehem. (But I do think he misses the hint he gives.)

He makes assertions I do not believe, but he does say one thing I consider credible. It would have been that Herod ordered that (at least for the descendants of David). — The descendants of David would havebeen considered legitimate heirs to the throne, or in other words, Herod would have wanted to keep an eye on the Davidic descendants. One wrong move and he would move in for a kill.

This would be historically consistent because Herod always made sure to get rid of all and any competition to the throne. For example, he had Antigonus murdered before he could become the “king of the Jews.” — Andalso, fivedays before his death, when he found out his son Antipater plannedon becoming king in his father’s place he ordered him killed. This gives the so-called “massacre of the innocence” of Matthew 2:16,18 therefore has a historical ring of truth.

David Cox in his commentary on Luke suggests:

Luke does not say how long in advance of Jesus’ birth Joseph left for Bethlehem (v. 4) nor why he took Mary with him. It is possible that he used the emperor’s order as a means of removing Mary from possible gossip and emotional stress in her own village. He had already accepted her as his wife (Matt 1:24), but apparently they continued in betrothal (v. 5: “pledged to be married”) till after the birth.

He could have wanted to spare her the shame of rumors that she was going to havean illegitimate child that wasn’t his. Or this could have been a case of a man not wanting to leave his wife. Or both. There’s no reason to assume that this couldn’t have happened.

Conclusion

As his long essay comes to a close, Richard Carrier concludes:

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

I’m going to answer by saying that even though Carrier covers a lot of ground, that he doesn’t pay attention to all the evidence. For example, even though he protests against the alternate translation of Luke 2:2 as meaning “before Quirinius” on the ground that it is grammatically incorrect, he doesn’t take into account that Greek linguists see the term as grammatically awkward and thus leaves the door opened to alternate ways to translate it. — Also when he argues that the oath of 2 B.C. couldn’t be the census of Luke on the grounds of Josephus and Luke using two different terms, he either overlooks or ignores the account of the 5th century historian Orosious who placed Jesus’ birth at that time and used bothterms used by Luke and Josephus. Also, Orosius’ placing of Jesus’ birth at a later date than 4 B.C. is a reason for re dating Herod’s death to a later time as well.

And I’m going to give Carrier the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t know of any evidence placing Herod’s death later than is usually historically accepted. I believe the lunar eclipses of either the years 1, B.C. or A.D. are more mathematically less problematic than accepting the eclipses of 5 to 4 B.C. And since Archelaus claimed to have “long exercised royal authority” (when he obviously hadn’t) creates a basis for Josephus to reduce Herod’s reign by a few years.

The only two sources for a census associated with the name “Quirinius” come are Luke and Josephus. So since Josephus isn’t writing to promote a religion in his account of the census critics seem to assume it to be the more accurate of the two. Luke’s accuracy would predictably be called into question, being a part of the Christian Bible. — I am convinced that if Luke were a secular work, then the speculation would mearly be that two prominent ancient historians disagreed about a certain historical date. Except for these two, there is no other historical account. So there is no way to be one hundred percent sure.